The Connecticut State Supreme Court is reprehensible for this.
In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies.
The majority ruled that they are "not persuaded that the state produced any credible evidence" that the victim who, again, has "severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old, and cannot verbally communicate," was incapable of defending herself.
Meaning even if you are disabled or handicapped, if you did not leave physical marks on the attacker, you can't prove that you said no in the minds of the Connecticut State Supreme Court.
How exactly does someone who is intellectually comparable to a 3-year-old give consent in the first place?